Skip to main content

Secretly Recorded Phone Conversations in Divorce Cases

The Supreme Court has ruled that secretly recorded phone conversations between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial disputes. The judgment in Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025 INSC 829), delivered on July 14, 2025, has finally settled years of confusion among Indian courts.

Vibhor Garg and Neha married in 2009 but their relationship fell apart. When Vibhor filed for divorce in 2017, he had secret phone recordings of conversations with his wife from 2010 and 2016. When he tried to use these as evidence, Neha objected, saying it violated her right to privacy. The Punjab & Haryana High Court agreed with her and blocked the recordings.

The Supreme Court, led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, disagreed completely. They ruled that privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to a fair trial. The judgment shows how confused courts were before this decision:

Courts That Allowed Recordings:

·       Delhi High Court in Deepti Kapur vs. Kunal Julka (2020)

·       Rajasthan High Court in Preeti Jain vs. Kunal Jain (2016)

·       Karnataka High Court in Kethana Lokesh vs. Rahul R. Bettakote (2024)

·       Gujarat High Court in Jil vs. State of Gujarat (2024)

·       Bombay High Court in Havovi Kersi Sethna vs. Kersi Gustad Sethna (2011)

Courts That Blocked Recordings:

·       Punjab & Haryana High Court in Deepinder Singh Mann vs. Ranjit Kaur (2014)

·       Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari vs. Nagaphanender Rayala (2008)

·       Chhattisgarh High Court in Aasha Lata Soni vs. Durgesh Soni (2023)

·       Himachal Pradesh High Court in Dharmesh Sharma vs. Tanisha Sharma (2024)

The Supreme Court relied on Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which normally protects private conversations between spouses. But this same law has a built-in exception: when spouses are fighting each other in court (like in divorce cases), these privacy protections don't apply.

The Court also referred to old Supreme Court cases like:

·   Yusufalli Esmail Nagree vs. State of Maharashtra (1968) - which allowed secretly recorded evidence if it's relevant and authentic

·    R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) - which set the three-part test: relevance, voice identification, and accuracy

 The Court made it clear that such evidence must still meet strict standards:

·       Must be relevant to the case

·       Voices must be properly identified

·       Must prove the recordings are genuine and not tampered with

The Court noted that if spouses are secretly recording each other, the marriage is already broken. The recording shows the relationship has problems - it doesn't create them.

The ruling doesn't encourage spying between spouses. Instead, it recognises that in our smartphone age, courts shouldn't ignore the best available evidence just because someone's feelings might get hurt. For many victims of domestic abuse who previously couldn't prove their cases, this decision offers new hope for justice.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maintenance Charges Default: No Water, No Sympathy

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Court Upholds Co-operative Membership Transfer with Release Deed

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...
2 comments
Read more

AMORTISED COST CALCULATION: THE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (EIR)

IAS 39 mandates some financial assets and liabilities to be subsequently measured at ‘amortized cost’.  This measurement concept is a management theory put in accounting practice. It means that the contractual interest rate each period should be adjusted to amortize the transaction costs over the expected life of the financial instrument. The amortization is calculated on an effective interest rate (EIR) / yield-to-maturity (YTM) basis. The EIR is the rate that exactly discounts the stream of principal and interest cash flows excluding any impact of credit losses, to the initial net proceeds. It is important to note that EIR method does not take into account any future credit impairments anticipated on that instrument. The carrying amount of the financial instrument subsequently measured at amortized cost is computed as: Transaction costs are an integral part of the amortized cost calculation. They are defined as costs that are directly attributable to the acquisit...
49 comments
Read more